Kendall Taggart (6:03)

That's right, Nicole. I think you sketched out the big picture well, and the large stakes here, but there's also the small picture, which is what the heck is this indictment actually about? Because there's so little detail in it. And we had assumed all day long that this indictment had to do with James Comey's relationship with his deputy, Andrew McCabe, and whether he authorized Andrew McCabe to leak a particular story to the Wall Street Journal.

Nicole Wallace (6:28)

But.

Kendall Taggart (6:28)

But it turns out that's not accurate. I've just confirmed from a source familiar that the underlying, the main allegation of lying to Congress in this indictment has to do with the allegation that James Comey told his or lied about, whether he told his friend Dan Richmond, who was at the time a special government employee at the FBI, whether he authorized him to be an anonymous source of. For reporters about stories about an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton. So Richmond would be person number three in the indictment, we are told, and Hillary Clinton would be person number one. That sort of goes against what we thought this indictment was about. And it raises this question, because we don't know what the evidence is that the government has supporting their allegation that James Comey lied to Congress. Comey testified in 2017 that he never authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source for reporters. And then when he was asked about that again in this 2020 hearing, which is subject to this, which is within the statute of limitations, he said, I stand by my 2017 testimony. So it appears that the government is saying that 2017 testimony was a lie. You repeated the lie in 2020. And the way they would prove that is if they had evidence that, in fact, Comey did authorize Dan Richmond to talk to reporters about an investigation into Hillary Clinton back then. That's a very specific. And so it suggests to me that they think they have something. And it changes the way I am thinking about this indictment. It doesn't change, however, the big picture that you described, which is that this is a case that career prosecutors inside that office and the U.S. attorney in that office did not think was worthy of bringing forth as a criminal case. And in fact, Eric Siebert, the U.S. attorney, was essentially forced out because he resisted bringing this case. And also the one against Tish James. And we have new news on that score. He had a deputy, a woman named Maya Song, a very well regarded person within that office. She was demoted when he was fired to prevent her from becoming the interim U.S. attorney because she wouldn't bring the case either. Today we have learned, my colleague Carol Lennig, reporting on her day off, has learned that Maya Song was fired today from the Justice Department. So that bit of news, adding to this picture that the White House has essentially seized control of this Justice Department, and any figment of independence that the Justice Department may have had from the White House has evaporated in the Trump administration.

Nicole Wallace (8:56)

Kundalini, the New York Times reported last Friday night that Mr. Richman had been interviewed, I think about a week and a half or two weeks ago, ostensibly by Eric Siebert or his deputies. Do we know if he was interviewed again in the period after Siebert was forced out? Because I think there were accounts saying that he hadn't proved helpful in moving toward an indictment of Jim Comey.

Kendall Taggart (9:20)

Yeah, I mean, I would be careful about, you know, the grand juries are secret, and I don't know for sure, but I have no reason to believe that Dan Richmond was interviewed again. And he did not testify before the grand jury. He was only interviewed, which suggests, you know, that usually suggests that they believe the witness wasn't, in fact, helpful. But there are also a lot of documents, don't forget that Kash Patel is rummaging through in different rooms inside the FBI because they are obsessed, remember, with this Trump Russia investigation and what happened and what James Comey did and what people like Dan Richmond did. And so they're going through all these documents and it's possible they found something that suggests to them that they think that Comey authorized Dan Richmond to talk to reporters. And let's think about that. Does that matter in the scheme of things? And even if that's true, there would have to be evidence that Comey didn't just forget, but that he willfully and knowingly lied to Congress. Why would he do that? He's a lawyer, after all, he worked at the Justice Department before he was the FBI director. He willingly testified in public. And why would he knowingly lie to Congress about something that really wasn't all of that? It wasn't really germane to the topic at hand, which was the Trump Russia investigation. That was that hearing back in 2020. So I think, you know, even if they have something that suggests that Comey's, that's inconsistent with Comey's testimony, It's a long way from that to a criminal conviction on perjury and lying to Congress. And that, I think, explains why so many career prosecutors were against bringing this case. Nicole.

Nicole Wallace (10:51)

Not just career prosecutors, but Attorney General Bill Barr was so against it that it becomes fodder for his own memoir. In 2022, Bill Barr writes this, quote, how could you do that, Bill? Trump kept on repeating, quote, I read the report, all 80 plus pages. It was clear as day. The evidence was all. Even Horowitz, that was the IG for doj, said he should be prosecuted. Quick fact check, he didn't. I'm shocked, Bill. I'm disgusted. I'm not happy about this, Bill. I. Bill Barr told him, Trump, as I had said to him when he brought me on, I would apply the same standard for everybody and would not cut corners just to go after a political adversary. When Trump kept saying, everyone says it's a slam dunk, I realized the problem. His usual routine of outside legal experts were winding him up. When I asked who everyone was, he only said, everyone, Bill, everyone. President Trump never let me forget how unhappy he was with this decision. He brought it up constantly, quote, you had the chance to prosecute Comey and you didn't, he would say later. It became the first in his oft repeated litany of grievances about me. Everyone except family members has a shelf life with him. People are worthwhile to Trump only as means to his ends and utensils, and they don't help him get what he wants. They are useless. So I just want to put this frame. Oh, and this is the reporting I mentioned. Let me actually read from it directly, Ken. Mr. Siebert's office recently hit a roadblock in its investigation into Comey on claims that he lied under oath. Last week, prosecutors from Siebert's office subpoenaed Daniel Richmond, a Columbia law professor and close friend, an advisor to Comey, in connection with an investigation into whether the former director had lied about whether he authorized Mr. Richmond to leak information to the news media. That's according to people familiar with the situation. Documents released by the FBI in August showed that investigators had examined possible disclosures of classified information to the New York Times. Mr. Richmond's statements to prosecutors were not helpful in their efforts to build a case against Comey, according to two people familiar with the matter. I guess my question for you, Ken, is, from the evidence that was available to Bill Barr and the evidence that was available to Eric Siebert, has there been any other evidentiary work done in the Time that I forget her name. But the new U.S. attorney arrived in.

Kendall Taggart (13:11)

That office, Lindsey Halligan. I can't see how there could have been Nicole. It's just not enough time. But again, I can read the information about Dan Richmond not being helpful, as he didn't remember. He couldn't bolster the documents. But they may have documents, they may have evidence. But I think what you said before, that is the most important thing. This is not this case against James Comey for the Trump world and MAGA world is not about whether he lied to Congress about leaks. This is about the Trump Russia investigation, which they cannot get over. And they continue to litigate. And they are furious that John Durham could not charge James Comey and other people with misconduct as part of the Trump Russia investigation. They're furious that the took a look and said the FBI was justified in opening that investigation. And so when Lindsey Graham was on Fox News last night reacting to the Comey indictment, he didn't talk about lying to Congress or about leaks. He talked about what he perceived as James Comey's sins in the Trump Russia investigation. So they're using this as a weapon, this marginal perjury charge to go after Comey because they hate what he did in investigating Donald Trump over the Trump Russia allegations. And everyone who's looked at this, reasonable people have said, how could the FBI not have investigated those allegations? And, of course, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a bipartisan report, I'm sure you've mentioned this a hundred times on your show, authored in part by Marco Rubio, saying that that what the Russians did and the Trump campaign's dalliance with the Russians in 2016 was a grave counterintelligence threat to the United States was a big problem and something that the country needed to care about and the FBI did need to investigate.

Brendan Ballou (14:51)

And.

Kendall Taggart (14:52)

But MAGA is not forgiving that. And this is part of the repercussions.

Nicole Wallace (14:56)

Does the Russia investigation get open before Jim Comey is fired by Donald Trump for refusing to let Mike Flynn go for lying to the FBI?

Kendall Taggart (15:06)

Yes, it did. That's right. Crossfire Hurricane was open before then, but.

Nicole Wallace (15:10)

The whole thing that Trump rages against is that piece of it. And Comey is. I mean, he's. Comey is gone from atop the FBI by, I think it's early March. Right. I mean, it's just, it is such a twisted web of rage and revenge. And to read Bill Barr's telling of it, it's amazing that it took him eight years to find someone to do what he wanted done after all the things that Bill Barr did for him.

Kendall Taggart (15:38)

And Bill Barr was not a fan of the Trump Russia investigation, right? Bill Barr was. Neither was Andrew McCarthy today on Fox when he said there is no case against Comey. People who think that the Trump Russia investigation was illegitimate have still looked at this case against Comey and said that's not it. It's just not. And so it's the question of whether you're willing to weaponize the justice system to punish your enemies. Bill Barr was not. He didn't see a case there. And now we have a much different situation, again, reserving judgment because we haven't seen the full evidence in the Comey case.

Nicole Wallace (16:09)

Ken, your reporting has been amazing. Stick around with us a little bit longer, if you will, especially the pace at which you're breaking news on this story. I want to bring Liz and Brendan in, who have been who were in this Justice Department for a bit, not much longer than that, but while Pam Bondi was atop it and while Kash Patel was atop the FBI. And Liz, I'd just like to hear your reaction to the spectacle last night both of the indictment of Jim Comey and his defiant response.

Liz Oyer (16:41)

This is really just shocking. It's hard to even find the words to capture the full magnitude of what is going on right now in our country. Our justice system seems to be folding under pressure from Donald Trump. I think a lot of those of us who have practiced in this system for many, many years took a lot of things for granted, namely that the leaders of our country are operating in good faith when they seek to uphold the principles of justice. And when they cease to do that, it's really in question whether our justice system can continue to stand. This is a turning point. It's incredibly serious. We have to hope now that the career people who are still in the department will continue to stand up for what's right and that the safeguards that remain in place, which include the citizens who serve on juries and grand juries, as well as judges like the one who is presiding over this case, will continue to stand up for the rule of law and not convict a person in a case that is clearly politically motivated and ill advised based on motivations that are just not proper in the context of our justice system. What's happening now is really un American and it fundamentally undercuts the credibility and legitimacy of the justice system on which we all rely.

Nicole Wallace (18:00)

Are you surprised, Liz, that there were, I mean, we don't know that there was Anyone other than Ms. Hallahan, Halligan Halligan who presented evidence to a grand jury. So I guess if there wasn't anyone but her, we're just talking about her. But are you surprised that Trump eventually found someone who could bring a case that Bill Barr and Eric Siebert and his deputy refused to?

Liz Oyer (18:28)

Lindsey Halligan is a sham prosecutor. She is an insurance lawyer who curried favor with Donald Trump by helping him with the classified documents case. She then became in charge of removing woke ideology from the Smithsonian museums. She has no relevant experience to be in the position that she's in. The problem when you have someone like that in this role is that grand juries are a very secretive type of proceeding in which only the prosecution gets to present evidence. The defense is not entitled to hear the evidence. Present a defense, challenge the evidence. There's not even a judge in the room to referee what the prosecutor is presenting. I would love to see what Lindsey Halligan said, said to those grand jurors. It sounds like she may have actually presented the evidence herself, which is incredibly unusual for someone who is A at that high level of the head of the office and b brand new to the case to go into a grand jury themself. But she personally signed the indictment. There's no indication of the name of any other prosecutor on the charging document, which suggests that she could not find one single other person in the office who was willing to help her bring this case. And if the grand jury testimony eventually comes to light, it will be very interesting to see whether what was presented matches the reality of the situation at all.

Nicole Wallace (19:48)

Brendan, I think you were on set with us during one of the breaking news cycles when the purge took place at SDNY over Emil Bove's meddling in the criminal investigation and case against Eric Adams. Danielle Sassoon left. Her deputy left with sharply worded letters. I'm paraphrasing, but I believe it's Danielle Sassoon's deputy who said, I won't do this, but eventually you'll find someone who will. A similar exodus seems to have taken place at Virginia in the Eastern District of Virginia with Eric Siebert is not a figure of the deep state. He's not and it shouldn't matter. But I think if you're taking the MAGA lens on all of this, it's an important part of the story. He's sort of Republican in royalty in Virginia. His father in law is the closest political advisor to the Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. I believe he was also Mike Pence's attorney. I believe it's been reported that Eric Siebert had good relationships atop the Department of Justice with many, including Pam Bondi herself. That person says to Pam Bondi, there's no case there against Comey. He reaches the same conclusion that Bill Barr did. And Bill Barr obviously thinks this is over. He writes about it in his book. There's another passage where Bill Barr says everyone at the department believed there was nothing there. Everyone. So I wonder what the department does with a case where two of the witnesses who could be called in a trial are Bill Barr and Eric Siebert.

Brendan Ballou (21:29)

Yeah, it's a great question. And let me just emphasize everything that Liz said. This is a dark day for the Justice Department. It's a dark day for justice in America in terms of how they're going to assemble the case. I completely agree. It's going to be a real challenge. You know, part of it is exactly what you're touching on, which is that they weren't able to find career prosecutors in ebva. It appears to actually present the indictment. The other problem is if they're going to rely on Halligan to prosecute the case, she has no prosecutorial experience. It's not even clear that she has any trial experience. So she's going to really struggle. You know, it's possible, probable that the administration is going to bring in Lawyers from other U.S. attorney's offices, other parts of main justice to prosecute this case. But one of the good things that we have going on here is that the Eastern District of Virginia has some of the most politically informed jurors in the United States. There's a good chance that they're paying attention to this story right now. And if they are, I think they're going to be extremely skeptical of the case that the government's going to put on.

Nicole Wallace (22:31)

I want to ask all of you, both of you, about Doom Comey's message, defiant and sanguine and, you know, to the point both of you are making, words don't really capture it. So I want to play it again and have that conversation on the other side of the break. Also ahead for us, one of our next guests says this is more than just making good on a promise of political retribution. It is the start of an all out power grab. We'll talk about that piece and whether any of our institutions or voters can still stop it. Plus, another target of Donald Trump's revenge tour is former director of the CIA, frequent guest on this program, John Brennan. There's new reporting that Trump's own Dni Tulsi Gabbard may have helped muddy the potential for successfully bringing a case against him. We'll have that reporting and we'll have John Brennan join us. Also ahead, Tim Snyder will be here on this turn that America has taken forward. Autoc. We'll have all those stories and guests and more when Deadline White House continues after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Laci Mosley (23:37)

What's poppin listeners? I'm Laci Mosley, host of the podcast Scam Goddess, the show that's an ode to fraud and all those who practice it. Each week I talk with very special guests about the scammiest scammers of all time. Wanna know about the fake errors? We got em? What about a career con man? We've got them too, guys that will wine and dine you and then steal all your coins. You know they are represented because representation matters. I'm joined by guests like Nicole Byer, Ira Madison iii, Conan o' Brien and more. Join the congregation and listen to Scam Goddess. Wherever you get your podcasts, here's a question.

CDC Representative (24:16)

How can you keep from getting sick with a respiratory illness this season? The good news is everyday actions can help you stay well and stop the spread. Wash your hands, take take steps for cleaner air and try to avoid close contact with people who are sick. And talk to your doctor about what vaccines may be right for you so you can help keep yourself and your loved ones healthy. Learn more@cdc.gov respiratory illnesses a message from CDC businesses that are selling through the roof like Untuck it make selling and.

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (24:48)

For shoppers buying simple with Shopify, home.

CDC Representative (24:51)

Of the number one checkout on the planet. And with Shop Pay, you can boost conversions up to 50%. Businesses that sell more sell on Shopify. Upgrade your business and get the same checkout Untuck it uses. Sign up for your $1 per month trial period at shopify.com podcastfree all lowercase go to shopify.com podcastfree to upgrade your selling today.

James Comey (25:16)

My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn't either. Somebody that I love dearly recently said that fear is the tool of a tyrant, and she's right. But I'm not afraid and I hope you're not either. I hope instead you are engaged, you are paying attention, and you will vote like your beloved country depends upon it, which it does. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system and I'M innocent, so let's have a trial and keep the faith.

Nicole Wallace (26:07)

I thought about that line. I am not afraid, because I think when I first interviewed each of you, I asked both of you if you're afraid, if you're afraid of what they'll do to each of you for speaking out about what you saw in your experiences of basically being purged from department, for doing your job. And I wondered if you shared this feeling that you were just doing your job. You were faithful to the Constitution and loyal to the country and the people who turned to the federal government for fair and impartial and blind justice. And I think in this climate where after the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk and everything that has been said in the wake after the crackdown on speech that Brendan Carr telegraphed on television, I think a lot of people have felt scared watching human beings be treated as something other than that. In the process of arresting people suspected of being here illegal. I think fear is pretty pervasive. And I wonder if you guys feel the way Jim Comey does or if you ever feel afraid. You first, Brendan.

Brendan Ballou (27:14)

Well, it's a great question, and I'm glad that James Comey is striking a tone of defiance. I think that's exactly right. I completely understand why a person would feel afraid in this moment, no matter who you are. But just as there are reasons for fear, I think that there are reasons for defiance and even reasons for hope. One of the things that I find encouraging here is that this administration wasn't able to secure an indictment on its first proposed charge, which suggests that even only seeing the government's evidence, that these grand jurors rejected them. So the fact that they've got an incredibly weak case, I think is a reason for hope. I think the other reason for hope is that this is a terrifically incompetent administration generally, and it seems like an incompetent leadership that's coming into the Eastern District of Virginia. So even though this administration might be pursuing political prosecutions and pursuing it very aggressively, I don't think that they're necessarily going to pursue them particularly well.

Nicole Wallace (28:13)

Liz, what about you, Nicole?

Liz Oyer (28:16)

I agree with James Comey 100% that we can't be afraid to stand up to Donald Trump and stand up for our country. I'm afraid of what happens if we don't do that. I'm afraid for our country and for our future. I'm afraid of where this could stop. Will these prosecutions stop with Donald Trump's enemies, or will it be everyone who disagrees with him? On anything, everyone who didn't vote for him. There's really no end to it unless we act bravely and we stand up for our democracy. A lot is being asked of us as citizens in this moment, and many people are rising to the occasion, which is encouraging and heartening to see. The only thing we have to fear is that people censor themselves. That that's really what allows an authoritarian to take hold, is if people are so afraid to stand up that they censor themselves in advance, they don't speak out, they don't stand up for what's right. And I'm hoping that this will be a turning point that shows many Americans, including many people in the Justice Department, the bigger picture, that it is so important to stand up for what's right, even if it comes at a personal cost.

Nicole Wallace (29:21)

Brendan, let me give you one last word on what it says about who's left inside the department. I mean, I understand it is a lot easier to say, why don't they leave? Than it is to. To quit in protest, but what do you think it is like for people who either don't have the financial security to walk out the door in protest or afraid of who might come in behind them if they leave? What are you, what are you either hearing, or what do you imagine it's like if you still work inside the Department of Justice right now?

Brendan Ballou (29:53)

You know, when I talk to or hear from people that are still in government, each one of them is being forced to make a terrible moral calculation, which is, can I be more effective at stopping the collapse of democracy by staying in government or by leaving? It's a choice that nobody wants to make. It's a choice that nobody should have to make. I'll say everybody comes down on that question a little differently, and I think you alluded to it in your question that some people are financially constrained or have other reasons why they need to stay in government. I think that there is an argument to be made that staying prevents some of the worst impulses of this administration. But in a world now where this administration will simply fire you for any sort of objection, it's possible that you're simply lending your credibility as an unbiased prosecutor to an extremely biased prosecution.

Nicole Wallace (30:48)

Liz and Brendan, I never take for granted the risks that you take in speaking out. And I really, I am so grateful to both of you for doing it and for doing it on our show. We couldn't tell these stories without you, so thank you. Kendallanean left to do more reporting. He'll be back. If there are any developments while we're on the air over the next two hours? Thank you all. Ahead for us, prosecuting political opponents is not a popular political move at all. So why is so much of it happening and so publicly? We'll have much more ahead on this breaking story today. Don't go anywhere.

Kelly Ripa (31:25)

Hey there, it's Kelly Ripa. And if you've been listening to my podcast, we are knee deep in season three. And if you haven't heard it, it's time to get on board. After years of interviewing celebs on camera, I finally get to bring you the real conversations that take place when the cameras aren't, aren't rolling. Where else are you going to hear Michelle Obama talk about keeping her girls out of Page Six? Hilaria Baldwin's hilarious reaction to Alec running for office, or Jeremy Renner's lucid hallucinations about Jamie Foxx? Nowhere else. It's raw, it's honest and best of all, it's off camera. And believe me, that's where you get the good stuff. So download. Let's talk off camera with Kelly Ripa now. Wherever you get your podcast, here's a question.

CDC Representative (32:08)

How can you keep from getting sick with a respiratory illness this season? The good news is everyday actions can help you stay well and stop the spread. Wash your hands, take steps for cleaner air and try to avoid close contact with people who are sick. And talk to your doctor about what vaccines may be right for you so you can help keep yourself and your loved ones healthy. Learn more@cdc.gov respiratory illnesses a message from CDC.

Nicole Wallace (32:37)

You know who's surprisingly good with money? Greenlight kids.

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (32:40)

The other day mine stopped to think.

CDC Representative (32:42)

About the ROI on a bag of chips. Seriously. From getting paid for doing chores around.

Kendall Taggart (32:48)

The house to saving up for concerts.

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (32:50)

Greenlight's teaching my kids how to handle their money.

Liz Oyer (32:53)

Greenlight your kids financial future with the number one family finance and safety app. Try Greenlight risk free@greenlight.com podcast. I want the American people to know.

Nicole Wallace (33:06)

That when you stand up to a bully, you win.

Liz Oyer (33:09)

Do not back down. Do not bend.

Kelly Ripa (33:13)

You allow them to go and wage their threats.

Liz Oyer (33:16)

If everybody starts to bend for sure.

Nicole Wallace (33:19)

What is left of our democracy will be gone. Ms. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett on the urgency of fighting back right now against Donald Trump's perversion of the department Department of Justice. As he begins his nearly decade long endeavor and promise to lock up his political enemies. With his long vowed retribution campaign now clearly underway, the only question is will any of our institutions or will it be us, the American people, who might be able to stop it. The Atlantic's David Frum writes this quote, trump's politicization of the Department of Justice is a backward looking expression of hurt feelings. It is also another step in a forward looking plot to shred the rule of law in order to pervert the next election and protect his corruption from accountability. James Comey's rights and liberties are not the only ones at risk today. So is your own right to participate in free and fair elections in order to render a verdict on Trump's invasion of those rights and liberties. Trump understands the stakes and has been astoundingly transparent about his intentions. Will you listen and understand as clearly as he speaks and threatens? I want to bring into our conversation David Frum, staff writer for the Atlantic, host of the video podcast the David Frum show, and Puck News chief political columnist, MSNBC national affairs analyst John Heilman's here as well. David Frum, I stop and read everything you write. I have it alerted on my Atlantic subscription, but this one stopped me in my tracks. I actually, I left the room and I read it twice and I'm so glad you're here to talk about it. Just re argue what you argue in the piece for us.

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (34:58)

Well, look, we are all focused on Donald Trump's hurt feelings and his vow to get revenge on people who crossed him in the past. He's mad at James Comey for investigating the Trump Russia link in 2016. But he's also told us since the murder of Charlie Kirk how he intends to use the Department of Justice to affect the future. On the day of the assassination, President Trump went on television and said what he wants to do is crack down on the funding networks that support all of his opponents. Now, the assassin of Charlie Kirk wasn't supported by any funding network, but if you believe that there's this giant left wing conspiracy that stretches from everybody from Joe Manchin to Antifa, and that they're all depending on money that is raised on ActBlue, which Trump ordered investigated back in April, and on Reid Hoffman, the billionaire tech investor. Then this all begins. Then you begin to see the plan. And Trump has talked about it. His vice president has talked about it. His top aide Stephen Miller has talked about it. What they want to do is get use emergency powers after the assassination to deploy the Department of Justice against people who give money to causes they don't like. And that includes Democratic candidates. That includes ActBlue, the Democratic fundraising platform. That includes the people get money from Reid Hoffman and George soros to run campaigns to do democracy. Right. Because they're in a lot of trouble heading into 2026. I compare Trump to men trying to walk faster and faster up a down escalator that is moving faster and faster against them.

Nicole Wallace (36:24)

The other piece of it that I've been thinking about a lot is how they are so successfully deploying fear. You know, fear in this study of autocratic slides is the cheapest and the easiest to scale weapon they have. Cheaper than bullets, cheaper than tanks, cheaper than armies, cheaper than prosecutions. I mean, this for them has been a process. He's been trying to indict Jim Comey for nine years. You have a really alarming sort of analysis of the impact of troops on the streets in D.C. that if you think people aren't going out to eat, wait until they have to go vote, talk about that.

CDC Representative (37:05)

Right?

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (37:07)

So here in Washington, D.C. where we are very familiar with troops on the streets, they come out for every four years to protect us on Inauguration Day. And we thank them for that service. They were here after 9, 11 to protect us. We thank them for that service. We are not hostile to troops in Washington, D.C. and of course, there's a D.C. national Guard and we have the Marines at 8th and I, we welcome all of them. But since the Trump deployment, since the Trump deployment, every restaurant and bar in downtown D.C. has noticed a big drop off in traffic. Now the people are going to Washington, D.C. restaurants and bars, which are not cheap, are not going to be illegal aliens. They're just regular residents of Washington. But they are avoiding the streets because of, not fear of being thrown into. They couldn't tell you what they're afraid of. They just don't want to be there. And now imagine those troops being deployed not in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. but in blue cities, in red states where election balances really are in question. In Phoenix, in Charlotte, in Atlanta, and just trying to discourage a little bit of turnout. Not a lot. You don't have to terrify everybody just enough to tip balances to change the outcome of the midterm. That is what I think. These practice runs in Los angeles and now D.C. and soon Chicago maybe are training for frightening people off the street so they don't want to stand in a queue on voting day.

Nicole Wallace (38:24)

Do you see anything sort of in the DNA of the American response either to Kimmel or to anything that Trump has done that suggests sort of a pulse in the resistance or opposition to any of this?

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (38:42)

Yeah, I do think so. And I think it's also important to understand that we're not dealing with a light switch here that is on and off. We're dealing with a dimmer. Trump is trying to move the dimmer a few points in his direction, and the goal is to prevent him from doing that and move the dimmer a few points back to true north. He needs to just discourage a little bit of turnout, not all of it, just a little. And if enough people can muster their determination, we will turn out. Then he's in a lot of trouble in 2026, because this is a point you will remember from your political days. The problem with a gerrymander. Imagine you've got a piece of bread with some jam on it. What you do with a gerrymander is you take your jam and you spread it as thinly as possible to cover as much of the bread as you can, and you push your enemies or your adversary's jam off into the corners where it piles up in great heaps. The. The problem is, by spreading your jam so thinly, if anything goes wrong, there may not be enough jam to cover the piece of bread. So a gerrymander that it tries to turn 48% of the vote into 60% of the seats. If you fall below a certain target, you get nothing. And so that is one of the risks that the Trump people are running as their numbers plunge. Grocery prices are up, electricity prices are up. Job growth has stopped. We're moving into stagflation. The economy is in trouble. Only about 35% of the country give Trump marks on the economy, the issue that he was elected on in 2024. He is in trouble. He is looking for ways to prevent trouble because if he loses control of the House, he loses his shield against investigations for the billions of dollars he's made in the past eight months.

Nicole Wallace (40:14)

So, Heilman, this is history that you and I have covered together. I mean, a popular president's party always loses in a wave in the midterms. I mean, it's just. I think there was one example. It was George W. Bush In 02, two years after the September 11 attacks in 2001, on an election, just almost a historical anomaly waged around efforts around national security, around things that midterms usually aren't about. What do you see? And just more broadly, what do you see in this moment? Sort of this post Comey indictment? It feels like an earthquake.

MSNBC Announcer (40:56)

Well, I'd say a few things. I mean, first, it's not even. It's a little. I take your point, Nicole. It's, you know, historically, incumbent presidents lose their parties Lose seats in midterms, kind of regardless of how popular they are as a. It's almost axiomatic that they're not as popular by the time you get to the midterms as they were when they got elected. So they've tried to do some things, some of those things are always encountering pushback. They're subject to a lot of criticism. And so they come into the midterms in a weakened state. The question is trying to limit losses, not trying to gain seats for your party in a midterm. That's the normal course of how our politics normally work. This is not a case for all the reasons that David just said. This is not a case where I think there's a high probability that under normal circumstance, given the way the economy's going, given the way Trump's numbers have been trending and so on, that you would say, hey, Donald Trump's going to pull a George W. Bush on the current trajectory. He's not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat. He doesn't look like the anomaly who's going to be like, man, Donald Trump's really defying the odds here. He's defied the odds in a lot of ways in a lot of places. But I don't think this is one, and I think David's right, that there's a clear perception that what the stakes are and that they need to do something. And because they're willing to do anything and they don't care about norms, they don't care about laws, they don't care about any of those things, they will try a lot of things. Fear, as you pointed out, is a very powerful motivating force, not unique to Donald Trump. A lot of political parties in a lot of elections have, especially when they're a little bit unpopular or a lot unpopular, have realized that fear is the powerful motivator. Democrats did this to great effect in the midterms in 2018 with fear of Trump. They did it again in the midterms. It was done to them. And obviously in the Obama midterms, you know, the notion of fear being motivated, that parties cling to fear when they don't have a lot of hope to offer. And I would say that my. On top of David's piece, I think I would go a little further even than David in the sense that I think his description of the reaction to troops on the streets in Washington is accurate as far as it goes, which is to say white people spending a lot of money in fancy bars and Restaurants are staying home because they just don't like the vibe of a militarized Washington, D.C. i think that as you head into the midterms, there are a lot of minority communities, particularly Hispanic voters, but also a lot of black voters, who will have seen the brutality of ICE over the course of two years and will know that there's going to be more troops on the street on Election Day than there have been even during those first two years. And I think a lot of people will be scared in those communities, which happen to be crucial voting constituencies for Democrats. If you add that to that tactical move, that fear move, to the redistricting efforts, the gerrymandering efforts, and to this other thing that doesn't get enough attention, which is Trump now starting to talk about how the 2020 census is illegitimate and that we have to, have to they didn't count the country the right way as a beginning of laying down the rhetorical tracks for the various ways in which the 2026 midterms could be seen as illegitimate, not just trying to depress turnout in a normal political way. Hey, if we depress turnout here a little bit here and a little bit there, maybe we could hold the House or the possibility that you're looking at a 2026 stop the steel movement. And I think that Comey is mostly an example of the fact that if you look at the FCC tried to cancel Jimmy Kimmel, one of the great incursions on free speech that we've seen in our lifetimes, maybe the greatest, followed in very rapid succession by this extraordinary action of a president ordering the attorney general to prosecute his political rivals. If you see those, they happened within a week. It happened within about 10 days of each other. I think they most, they have their own consequences. But what they demonstrate most is the attitude, which was the thing I started with, which is they will do anything, they will do anything, anything to keep Donald Trump from losing the House of Representatives. Just remember that if you're willing to do that to Jim Comey and you're willing to do that to Jimmy Kimmel, you will do anything to keep Donald Trump from facing a Democratic House in 2026.

Nicole Wallace (45:17)

All right, we're gonna there's news on both those points that you've made. Jimmy Kimmel's coming back to more stations tonight. I want to tell that on the other side of a short break and take some cough syrup. We'll all be right back. Rebecca, David and John. John, I want to pick up on something David said about the thinly spread jam which I love. 81% of Americans think Donald Trump is hiding something in the Epstein files. 21% of Americans think it's acceptable for the President to direct political prosecution. 30% of Americans approve of the tariffs and they haven't seen nothing yet. They've barely hit. What is your sense of the willingness to create a political. It seems like they're trying to create a political tsunami against Republicans. What is your sense of the political hubris they're displaying? If the stakes are as high as I agree with you that they see them as, why are they doing things that are almost exclusively and only unpopular?

MSNBC Announcer (46:26)

Well, the jam being spread thin, Nicole, but the self regard is piled high. That's the sandwich. That's the sandwich they want to have. That's the sandwich they're eating over there. I think that, that there's, I'm not saying endorsing this calculation, but the problem, and you and I have talked about this a hundred times, but I always come back to it. One of the problems with polling, it's not with the polling today or the polling yesterday, it's always a problem with polling is that polling doesn't measure salience. And so there are issues that people say they disapprove of the president on such and such, but they don't really vote on it. They don't really care about it very much. There are other issues that really, really matter to them a lot. Right. And you know, the tariff piece, the economy piece, the inflation piece, those things, you know, we saw this with Joe Biden, we're seeing it now with Donald Trump. Those things affect people in a really powerful direct way that gets, you know, what they have, their standard of living and their hope for their children's futures. Some of these other issues people express disapproval, but do they care? Is that really the thing that motivates them first to turn out and second to actually vote? Certainly in the bases of the parties, you know, there's not Democratic base voters, they have 25 reasons to vote against Donald Trump. The fact that they disapprove of the Jeffrey Epstein thing isn't really the issue. The question is, are those median voters who do disapprove of what Trump's doing on Jeffrey Epstein, but is that really the thing that's going to make them vote for him, that make them vote against the Republican Party who isn't even Donald Trump? That's the other challenge here, right? Is that the Republican Party's polling right now is better than Donald Trump's polling or kind of an unusual thing normally the president polls ahead of his party because Congress is so unpopular in this case on a lot of issues. Republican Party's out polling Donald Trump and Donald Trump's name, he's going to be the dominant factor in the midterms, but his name's not on the ballot. And so I think everything's breaking against Republicans, broadly speaking, here. Donald Trump's doing them no favors. But, but if you think his long game is ushering in a kind of an authoritarian regime in the United States, that's going to require doing some things that are unpopular in the moment and doing them by force. And I do think that one of the things we have to get out of the habit of thinking is that something I have said for a long time, that Donald Trump is a mollusk, right? We don't think of him as a long term thinker. We don't think of him as someone who has a plan or a strategy or he thinks more, more than about many 24 hours in front of him, often no more in front of him than the bag of fries or the French or the Big Mac that are in front of him. But I think right now, Donald Trump, with the help of the people he put around him in this administration, has a long term plan and the Republican Party, it's really important for them to try to win those midterms and keep control of the House for the reasons David said. But I think the longer term project, Donald Trump is willing to think that he can drag the Republican Party to whatever future it is that he and Stephen Miller and those people around him have in mind. And I think he's going to try to bulldoze through and do a bunch of things that at least in the moment are unpopular because that's the way authoritarianism works.

Nicole Wallace (49:35)

David Frum, There's a headline today that Sinclair, which was one of the holdouts in terms of bringing Jimmy Kimmel back on the air, they have yielded and relented to, they acknowledged to public pressure. They say we've had lots of thoughtful feedback, meaning I translate myself as angry and angry feedback from their own viewers in individual markets. What do you make about the growing delta between what the public is able to achieve, I think that took four days, and what politicians seem able to achieve in resisting or fighting back against Trump.

Progressive Insurance Advertiser (50:12)

Well, I think what happened to Sinclair is an expression of this look of those Americans who have heard of the killing of Charlie Kirk, and we shouldn't assume that everybody has because it's a big country and people don't always pay attention to things that happen on the other side side of it. But of those Americans who know about it, presumably the great majority are sad and think that this kind of violence is a shameful thing. Doesn't matter who it happens to. It's just wrong, shouldn't happen. It's sad. But how much appetite is there to say we are going to create a martyr cult around this person of whom most people will have not heard even until this month, this person you had not heard of before. We're going to create a martyr cult out of them. And because of this martyr cult, your favorite shows have to vanish from television and there have to be special hour long specials on your TV to celebrate this martyr cult of this person you'd never heard of and who isn't that important to you, as sad as you are by the terrible crime of his death. The Trump people believe that we are being swept by this wave of enthusiasm for the martyr call to Charlie Kirk. And it sort of startles them that they're not there are things they believe in. I just want to add one footnote to what you're saying about and John are saying about the long term plans. I'm very struck by this project to build a 90,000 square foot ballroom beside the White House. The White house itself is 55,000 square feet on all of its many floors. So a building about twice the size of the existing White House and Trump, for which Trump intends to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from favor seekers. Why is he doing that? Why do you build that kind of monument? This is very obviously a personal monument. No one else has ever thought to do it. It's not for some success or JD Vance doesn't seem interested in the project. If you're planning on leaving the office in 2029, why do you need to build this 90,000 twice as big as the White House monument to yourself right now? Why is that a priority? I suggest the guy, as John was saying maybe beginning in his last years to think a little bit more long term than he's ever thought before.

Nicole Wallace (52:10)

So ominous. Since we've been talking, is it nexstar, the other affiliate, the other owner of ABC affiliates has also relented just since we've been on the air. So I believe that means that Jimmy Kimmel will return tonight to all ABC affiliates. And that's just the power of the public of viewers in individual markets voicing their dissatisfaction with the decision as David from just perfectly articulated it. David, it's an incredible piece. Thank you for joining us to talk about it. John Halman thank you for your wisdom today. I needed it. After the break, another longtime political opponent to Donald Trump, former CIA Director John Brennan, will be our guest. The next hour of Deadline White House starts after a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Laci Mosley (52:59)

What's poppin, listeners? I'm Laci Mosley, host of the podcast Scam Goddess, the show that's an ode to fraud and all those who practice it. Each week I talk with very special guests about the the scammiest scammers of all time. Want to know about the fake errors? We got them. What about a career con man? We've got them too, guys that will wine and dine you and then steal all your coins. Oh, you know, they are represented because representation matters. I'm joined by guests like Nicole Byer, Ira Madison iii, Conan o' Brien and more. Join the congregation and listen to Scam Goddess. Wherever you get your podcasts.